News networks often run cell phone videos sent in by eye witnesses/viewers/etc (or even video via sat phone), so the bar for quality probably isn't that high.
If you get a good angle of the Trump assassination you can record it on whatever device you want and people will want it. If you're recording interviews with civilians while nobody's being bombed or shot at, they'll want reasonably professional looking footage.
On the other hand if the footage is coming from an actual war zone such as Aleppo or the future smoking ruins of Atlanta then news organizations will take whatever they can get. Absent a perfect reliable solution for moving such data around in dreadful conditions everyone is just gonna have to compromise - half a loaf is better than no bread.
The vast, vast, VAST majority of war photo journalism is stills. This may change in the future, but in general video journalism in war is handled very differently, has different operating parameters (for example tends to be conducted further back from the front lines, involves way more people, etc), and doesn't typically use SLRs at all.
> Also remember that what you're replacing here is the transfer of pre-edited footage, of which there is likely to be a huge amount. You refer to files of "a few MB or less" elsewhere, which suggests you haven't really thought about what's required here.
For some reason you appear to be shifting from photo journalism in warzones and other hostile and hazardous situations to videos taken in London... I'm not sure how this is related to the previous posts in the thread, and trying to completely shift the discussion then claiming that I haven't thought about what's required seems somewhat disingenuous at best.
> For some reason you appear to be shifting from photo journalism in warzones and other hostile and hazardous situations to videos taken in London
My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city).
The article is not "about video". The article mentions both, and if you read the original letter[0], you'll find it does too.
> My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city).
Making sense for London is irrelevant. Read the actual letter[0] - it talks about, and only about "...the most dangerous parts of the world", and protecting against "authoritarian governments or criminals". Obviously, if that's not what you're doing, then different solutions might be better.
0: https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...
My point about was that video journalism is likely to generate huge quantities of data, which is inconvenient to transfer even in relatively favourable circumstances, let alone adverse ones. Perhaps we can agree that comms infrastructure is going to be no better in most war zones than in London.
Yes, maybe heavily compressed 720p would be acceptable for some war journalism, but that's still going to be impossible to live stream reliably from almost anywhere in the world. And unless you're getting something spectacular, no mainstream TV station will want to use your crappy footage.
Also remember that what you're replacing here is the transfer of pre-edited footage, of which there is likely to be a huge amount. You refer to files of "a few MB or less" elsewhere, which suggests you haven't really thought about what's required here.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest this could never work, I mean satellite have been a thing for years. But at this point local storage is still vastly more practical for almost everybody.
Edit2: Also I agree with brudgers that you came across as gratuitously uncivil.